Things happens when it comes to environmental and climate issues, but the question is whether it helps when it comes to biodiversity and the conservation of our last natural forests. I’m afraid it’s “business as usual” when it comes to the forest…

It was agreed in the government to stand behind that the felling could be 92% of the growth in the forest. But it is somewhat sick to make a political decision on an issue where independent research should apply. Much like when determining the favorable conservation status of the wolf here in Sweden. Knowledge and research is not much worth when it comes to meeting the forest lobby and hunting interests.

The Swedish Forest Agency shall cease registration of key biotopes in connection with logging notification (when a new method of investigation has been found). Whatever method, key biotopes is an accepted concept that works. Here, too, I can only see that they give in to the forest lobby.

Even when it comes to the climate policy action plan that the government has just presented, I am afraid that it will be “business as usual” in the forest:

“51. The national forest program is being developed to further promote growing forestry and sustainable forestry.
52. A bioeconomic strategy that contributes to increased access to biomass and environmental and climate benefits will be developed. ”

How should the forest industry grow without infringing on biodiversity and forests worthy of protection? The forests already planted have not reached the final harvesting age. Forestry is far from sustainable as it is now.

Item 52 is pure star dust if you look at biomass from the forest. How will you increase the biomass without destroying biodiversity. Increased harvesting and environmental and climate benefits are impossible.

I finish with a couple of pictures from the bird feeding now in early December. Around here it is only me and the beavers who determine the harvest rate.